Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners

12 Pages·2010·0.13 MB·English

INT J LANG COMMUN DISORD
2010,EarlyOnlineArticle,1–12
Research Report
Speech perception in noise by monolingual, bilingual and trilingual listeners
Dollen Tabri†, Kim Michelle Smith Abou Chacra† and Tim Pring‡
†American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
‡Department of Language and Communication Science, City University, London,UK
(Received18January2010;accepted23August2010)
0
1
2/ Abstract
0
2/
n 1 Background: There is strong evidence that bilinguals have a deficit in speech perception for their second language
o
s comparedwithmonolingualspeakersunderunfavourablelisteningconditions(e.g.,noiseorreverberation),despite
a
all performing similarly to monolingual speakers under quiet conditions. This deficit persists for speakers highly
D
At proficientintheirsecondlanguageandisgreaterinthosewholearnedthelanguagelaterinlife.Thesefindingshave
s importanteducationalimplicationsbecausethenumberofmultilingualchildrenisincreasingworldwide,andmany
a
ex of these children are being taught in their non-native language under poor classroom acoustic conditions.
T
of Aims:Theperformanceofmonolingual,bilingualandtrilingualspeakersonanEnglishspeechperceptiontaskwas
y examinedinbothquietandnoisyconditions.Trilingualperformancewascomparedwiththatofmonolingualand
sit
er bilingualspeakers.
v
ni Methods & Procedures: Monolingual speakers of English and early bilingual and trilingual speakers (i.e., acquired
U
y Englishasasecond/thirdlanguagebeforetheageof6years)wererecruited.TheirfluencyinEnglishwastestedby
b
com nly. icnotnefirvrimewedannodrmbaylhaeaqruinesgtiionnanlalipreartaiscsiepsasnintsg.Ethnegilriskhnsopweelecdhgpeeracnedptiuosnewoafsttheseteldaninguqaugiee.tAanuddiionlodgififcearlenetvaleluvealtsioonf
m informahealthcare.For personal use o nOcTfinoovoruneiiitlssdiceebnoiitmg(tlih5iuonea0nasgn,lsu,&5lmaib5sltuo,eRstnn6peto0eeshurla,ieskln6iteprsg5:reupsraaBefwnlroisfdlhr,oimnobr7mgue0ludetaaadnnllrBecnoseatesSnddswPdiegALecnll)trlirianfiuitblehcsiidniaacnnngmgautnblaoytdihlrliseenEolirgS.snatuppgeaelniildesseclhryhastsiPnitpmheenrerucosfleeoitsparnemntioaeoeinonsddeuislwnsleyivmaNessliisoslnia,igcrsbenleyuib(fitSitcnroPatonhINtmtlwsy)oiegnpTrneooeilofispitrnc.oeagornurataeltlyr6asl5iots.athenAindgehsr7ues0brgidlnreBoveuqSlpusPiLooetff.
o
d fr Conclusions & Implications: The results replicate previous findings of poorer speech perception in noise with
e bilingualspeakers comparedwith monolingualsandextendthe findings to trilingualspeakers.
d
a
o
nl
w Keywords: speech perception in noise, bilingualism, trilingualism.
o
D
d
sor What this paper adds
Di
n Previous research has shown that bilingual speakers have poorer speech perception for their second language in
u
m noise than do monolinguals. This paper replicates this finding and, to the authors’ knowledge, it is the first to
m
o extendthefindingtotrilingualspeakers.Thepaperalsoalertsreaderstomorerecentevidencethatbilingualsalso
C
g performmorepoorlyintheirfirstlanguagewhenlisteninginnoisecomparedwithmonolinguals.Furtheranalyses
n
La examine whether trilinguals show a greater listening disadvantage than bilinguals and compare performance by a
J
nt small group of bilinguals who learned their languages simultaneously since birth with monolinguals.
I
Introduction 2000). High levels of reverberation (the persistence of
sound after cessation of the source) and noise
Poor classroom acoustics has been shown to have a
(unwanted sound inside or outside a room) negatively
deleteriouseffectonacademicachievementandpsycho- affect speech perception, reading and spelling ability,
educational and psychosocial development (Crandell classroom attention, concentration, and educational
1991 1992, 1993, Finitzo-Hieber 1988, Johnson achievement (American Speech–Language–Hearing
Addresscorrespondenceto:TimPring,DepartmentofLanguageandCommunicationScience,CityUniversity,NorthamptonSquare,
LondonEC1V0HB,UK;e-mail:[email protected]
InternationalJournalofLanguage&CommunicationDisorders
ISSN1368-2822print/ISSN1460-6984onlineq2010RoyalCollegeofSpeech&LanguageTherapists
http://www.informahealthcare.com
DOI:10.3109/13682822.2010.519372
2 Dollen Tabri et al.
Association (ASHA) 2005c). The ASHA (2005a: 1) (SPIN) test (Bilger et al. 1984, Kalikow et al. 1977).
recommends that: Florentinesuggested that asensitive period forsecond-
language acquisition may exist. Mayo et al. (1997)
(1) Unoccupied classroom noise must not exceed 35 explored whether age of second-language acquisition
dBA;(2) The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) should beat
influences English speech perception by comparing
least þ15 dB; and (3) Unoccupied classroom
early bilinguals (before 6 years of age) and late
reverberation times must not surpass 0.6 seconds in
bilinguals (after age 14) with monolingual speakers
smaller (,10,000 ft3) or 0.7 seconds in larger
using the SPIN test. Having shown that their groups
classrooms.
did not differ in quiet conditions, they tested them in
These conditions are seldom met (e.g., Knecht et al. noise first at 55dB SPL then at increments of 5dB to
2002).TypicalclassroomshaveSNRsof27toþ5dB find a level at which subjects’ speech perception scores
and reverberation times of 0.4 to 1.2s (Blair 1977, reached50%accuracy.Bilingualswithearlyacquisition
0 Crandell 1992, Finitzo-Hieber 1988, Knecht et al. of English performed better than those with later
1
02/ 2002). This has important implications, especially for acquisition but were poorer than monolinguals. Three
12/ children with special needs. bilingual listeners had learned their languages simul-
n
s o Crandell (1991, 1992) found that optimal speech taneously since infancy. Though too small a group for
a
all perception requires at least aþ6dB SNR and,0.5s comparisons, Mayo et al. felt their performance was
D
At reverberation time. Children with special needs may more similar to that of the early bilinguals than to
s require more favourable SNRs and shorter reverbera- monolinguals.
a
x
Te tion times (ASHA 2005b). One group with Rogers et al. (2006) obtained similar results using
of ‘specialneeds’isthosetaughtinanon-nativelanguage. the Speech Intelligibility Gain—Reverberant (SIG-R)
y
sit IntheUnitedKingdom,15.2%ofchildreninprimary test (Koehnke and Besing 1996). They compared the
ver schools speak a first language other than English. performance of monolinguals with bilinguals who had
ni
U The percentage varies widely across the country. learnedEnglishbefore6yearsofage,hadnodiscernible
y
com bnly. IanutIhnonreitryLoarnedaosnh,athvienmg eoavneris 5740.%1%(,Dweiptharstommenetlofcoarl atoccetnhteiarndfirhsatlfloanfgwuhaogme r(aStpeadntihshei)r.EWnghliislehabsilsiunpgeuraiolsr’
m informahealthcare.For personal use o CUfim(UvhnaeSniiMltdyeBscrdawuehnnroiSyel,olatSsaluscttpcuhehoesdiafolidkoetirthslleseahninasaCngvwuedeensialtsFgslihumeaossbmaweo2tinlet0ihade0tes0hrrt()aehtD.tchaenCatnnotSbnFEy-i)mnng2a2mtl00iisv11ihge00r)aas.pntoIetnhnaeokatmenhordeesf pmrosthienemvoerlyecynueroldbptltaiteihfninrforeageenrotueeiuaodolsnpsflf,yarE,orwtwtnmihcgaheislipmii,crsahhonnniptssseoeptvlroeiefhneooracgtrdshhummeaaillalnsenel.slacsqrae,nuntiiueinntmtfhwebenreaiiorrsoitsrsoel.iamdnAaegilntugaedaracg/itonteiorsf,
o
d fr of English have more difficulty perceiving speech in These results suggest that early acquisition is
e
ad noiseandreverberationthannativespeakers(Buusetal. important, but it remains unclear whether a sensitive
o
nl 1986, Caramazza et al. 1973, Crandell and Smaldino period exists for second-language acquisition or
w
Do 1996,Florentine1985a,1985b,Florentineetal.1984, whether bilinguals can ever perform as well as
ord McAllister 1990, Mayo et al. 1997, Nabelek and monolinguals in their second language. This view,
s
Di Donahue 1984, Rogers et al. 2006, Takata and that a sensitive period exists, may reflect the widely
un Nabelek 1990). In these studies non-native speakers accepted perspective that it exists for language learning
m
m performed as monolinguals in quiet conditions, but generally (Johnson and Newport 1989). The difficulty
o
C had lower noise tolerance levels, demonstrated of finding and verifying the language status of
g
an decreased performance on speech recognition tasks as individuals with very early bilingualism may be
L
nt J signal-to-noise conditions deteriorated, and were less frustrating for researchers in this area and may have
I able to benefit from across-word contextual contributed to the recent adoption of a different
information. approach. This involves comparing bilinguals’ percep-
Reasonsfortheseperformancedecrementshasbeen tion in noise of their first language with that of
attributed to a number of factors, including degree of monolinguals. Demonstration that bilinguals are
exposure to the language, age of second-language poorer than monolinguals in their first, as well as
acquisition and adversity of the listening environment. their second, language would suggest that bilingualism
Forexample,Florentine(1985b)foundthatwhilenon- has a general effect on language processing. Some
nativelisteners’abilitytounderstandEnglishspeechin resultshavebeenconsistentwiththissuggestion.Weiss
noise improved as their exposure to the language and Dempsey (2008) showed that bilinguals with
increased, only two non-native listeners with exposure greaterexperienceoftheirsecondlanguagewerepoorer
toEnglishsinceinfancyperformedlikenativelisteners, atperceivingtheirfirstlanguageinnoise.Thissuggests
when assessed with the Speech Perception in Noise that the problem increases as the participants became
Speech perception in noise 3
more proficiently bilingual. Von Hapsburg and Bahng English before the age of 6 years (as in Mayo et al.
(2008) also found that perception in noise of their 1997), (2) received more than 5 years of formal
participants’ first language (Korean) deteriorated as education in English, (3) rated themselves fluent or
their proficiency in English increased. These findings very fluent in written and spoken English, (4) spent
suggest that bilingualism may generally impair speech more than 50% of their time reading, listening to
perception in demanding conditions. This might arise music,orwatchingtelevisionandfilmsinEnglish,and
because the demands made on a listener’s perceptual (5) communicated in English more than 25% of the
skills by two different languages limits their ability in time were included.
either language, a deficit which is revealed under Participants underwent an audiological evaluation.
adverse listening conditions. It might also arise Theyhadnorecenthistoryofotologicpathology.Pure
because proficient bilinguals use both their languages tone audiometry revealed air-conduction thresholds
and, as a result, have less exposure to either than do better than 15dB HL from 0.25 to 8kHz in octave
0 monolinguals. steps (American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
1
2/ Thisstudyusestheoriginalmethodologyoftesting 1989), and hearing symmetry at each test frequency
0
12/ participantsintheirlateracquiredlanguagebutextends (interaural threshold differences at each test frequency
n
o it to include both early bilingual and trilingual were#5dB). Immittance testing revealed a normal
s
alla participants.1 In line with previous results, we expect tympanogram in each ear (Type A), and present
D
At both multilingual groups to show impaired perception ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexes, bilaterally
s of English in noise compared with monolinguals. (Jerger and Hayes 1980).
a
x
e A further interest is whether trilinguals have a greater All selected participants worked or studied in
T
of deficit than bilinguals. Such a result would add to Beirut, Lebanon, and held a college degree (under-
y
sit evidencethatmultilingualismgenerallyhasaneffecton graduate or graduate) or were undergraduate students.
ver speechperception,andwouldhighlighttheimportance College courses were taught in American English.
ni
U of controlling acoustic conditions in classrooms and The monolingual group (ML) of nine listeners
by other learning environments so that speech under- (male¼2,female¼7)learnedEnglishfrombirthand
com nly. standing by non-native students is optimized. had no other language. They ranged in age from 22 to
m informahealthcare.For personal use o TfUahcnurievlteeyMrg,siretotsyhutapooffsfdsoBafeniardduut,lsttaulnidsdteenfnrteormsbowsdetyuredeornefctrsuthoitefedoAtfhmreoremrlioctcahanel 4(eTthSd0hDeuemcTy)yash¼teeieaclovro5bnesm.is2liivmn)(n,emgurhEuyenanaadiflglcnulgarieetsr¼echondeuti3(pvrm0ees(daoeBdalymeLneelr)yoas¼orraesfin;1nt1dh73sa.w2Etnlairnsny1itgteed5elanirarysesrsherd;oasfrS(asDmEdnonedaf¼vglfeiloair1¼srtahmi.t7o.e5a)ndl,.
o
d fr universities. One group consisted of monolingual female¼8)wereagedfrom18to35years(mean¼27
ade English speakers, one of bilinguals who were fluent in years;SD¼5.1).AllhadbeenexposedtoArabicfrom
o
nl Arabic (native language) and English (second birth and to English before the age of 5 years
w
Do language), and one of trilingual’s who spoke Arabic, (mean¼2.1years;SD¼1.9).Allhadreceived10–17
ord French and English fluently. The latter considered years of formal education taught in English
Dis Arabic and French to be their native and second (mean¼12.3 years; SD¼1.5).
un languages and English to be their third language. Thetrilingualgroup(TL)of12listeners(male¼5,
m
m Multilingualparticipantswhowerehighlyfluentin female¼7) aged from 21 to 32 years (mean¼26.5
o
C Englishweresought.Attemptsweremadetocontrolfor years; SD¼4.0). All learned Arabic and French first,
g
an factors known to influence speech perception in andwereintroducedtoEnglishbetween3and6yearsof
L
Int J mthuirldti-llianngguuaalgesamacpqlueiss,itinoanm,e(l2y): d(1u)rataigoenooff sseeccoonndd oorr aygeaer(smoefanfo¼rm4a.l5yedeaurcsa;tSioDn¼in1.E0nygelaisrhs).(Amlleahnad¼61–01.55
third-languagestudy,and(3)degreeofsecondorthird- years; SD¼3.4 years). As in the BL group, they had
language usage and exposure. Participants’ English was significant exposure to and usage of English.
assessed by their fluency and extent and proficiency of
itsuse.First,aspeech–languagepathologistandnative
Test materials and apparatus
English speaker assessed participants’ fluency during a
face-to-faceinterviewinwhichtheyansweredquestions Participants were tested with the revised version of the
about everyday activities and events. Only participants Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) test (Bilger et al.
judged as highly fluent were selected for further 1984).Thetesthaseightlistsof50sentencesendingina
assessment. This consisted of a questionnaire (see the target word and presented in a 12-talker babble noise.
appendix)with35questionsexamininglanguageusage, Targets are monosyllabic nouns. Half are predictable
fluencyandexposure.Onlyparticipantswho(1)learned fromthecontextofthesentence(e.g.,Thecabinwasmade
4 Dollen Tabri et al.
of logs.) and half are embedded in syntactically correct ability in English, it was proposed to exclude anyone
sentences with no contextual cues (e.g., I should have who scored less than 96% in the quiet condition. This
known about the gum.). The test allows a comparison proved unnecessary as all participants exceeded this
betweenalistener’suseofcontextualcuesinspeech(high- target. Speech perception in noise was assessed using
predictability sentences) and his/her use of acoustic– lists1,3,5,6,7and8oftheSPINtest.Sixnoiselevels
phoneticinformation(low-predictabilitysentences). (50, 55, 60, 65 and 70dB SPL and one ‘individual’
Testing required a portable compact disc (CD) level) were used so that a psychometric function for
playerthatplayedrecordingsoftheSPINsentencesand speech perception in noise could be constructed for
multi-talker noise. Output from the player was routed each participant. Word list and noise level order were
to a two-channel audiometer (Interacoustics AC 40), randomized across listeners. The five standard noise
with the target sentences and background noise in levelsweretested,followedbytheindividualnoiselevel.
channels 1 and 2 of the audiometer, respectively. The ‘individual’ noise level was used to help refine
0 Outputs from both channels were mixed and directed the psychometric function, so that the point where
1
2/ to both transducers of standard audiometric earphones discriminationwasabout50%couldbeidentifiedmore
0
12/ to create a diotic listening condition. Prior to testing readily.Forexample,ifalistenerscored35%withnoise
n
o participants, a precision sound level meter (Bruel & at 65dB SPL and 70% at 60dB SPL, the ‘individual’
s
a
all Kjaer, Type 2231) was used to calibrate each channel level was set three decibels higher than the lower
D
s At s(^epa2rdatBe)lyftoor atcahrgieevtewaonrdasveroafgethleeveSlPoINf 70sednBtenScPesL. sthtaannda1rddBnocioseulldevenlost(ib.ee.,m63addeBwSiPthL;tihnecraemudeinotmseletesrs
a
x
e Similarly, the level of the multi-talker noise was used). Refinement of the psychometric function was
T
of calibrated to achieve an average level of 70dB SPL requiredforanestimationofnoisetolerancelevel,which
sity (^2dB) in each earphone transducer. Additionally, is defined here as the level of noise that could be
ver audiometer intensity (linearity) was checked to assure toleratedbeforealistener’sperformancedroppedbelow
ni
U that multi-talker noise levels of 50, 55, 60, 65 and 50% accuracy.
y
b 70dB SPL were accurate and achievable upon
m informahealthcare.com For personal use only. abca7SocuP0roandLdtudiS,iBosoueitmnnnciScttePe5ectdnL-mehdcr.aieeBTmnaspsshbuttoweheertpreeeelerssn(ev.sItaeAAialmopCsnmoreedd)fse.endettneoeoerrtxiuemspbedmelivenr-aaaiewmtnrdiiaeepadldnluuetcfldraraoi,lontnimgsosottnepau5.snint0ltoidnAtt-olgtltelrev7eseawt0clitaneedlodrgBie-f,, SwfSSopPPoueLLrred)csswRhwtaaeeennprrsddeeeuralcfcrtonaesdlrpocttnhuiooilagininthseec-sdlcualoefndovrdeeerdsllesoa((w%icinh.-e)p.lt,irfhsoe5tdere5intc,ahetn6raeb0a(fldi,uylai6slttliy5asl,sifseraatnosnmtodenfno75Sct00ePsddIaNaBBltl
o
d fr this range allowed speech perception performance to participants completed this level). Mean scores for the
e
ad vary between less than 15% accuracy (in 70dB SPL ML,BLandTLgroupsateachnoiselevelareshownin
o
nl noise)tomorethan85%accuracy(in50dBSPLnoise). table 1. A three-factor mixed analysis of variance was
w
Do conducted. Language was a between-subject variable
sord Procedure withthreelevels(ML,BL,TL).Sentencepredictability
Di withtwolevels(low,high)andnoisewithfourlevels(55,
un The experiment was conducted during a single, 2-h 60,65and70dBSPL)werewithin-subjectvariables.
m
m session. Mandatory rest periods were provided every Thereweresignificantmaineffectsforeachvariable:
o
C 30min (or sooner if requested). Participants signed language [F(2,31)¼8.34, p,0.01], sentence pre-
g
an consent forms and completed the English fluency dictability [F(1,31)¼363.28, p,0.0001] and noise
L
nt J assessmentandlanguagequestionnaire.Next,theywere level[F(3,93)¼794.09,p,0.0001].Theadvantages
I given written and verbal instructions about the SPIN forhigh(69%)overlow(52%)predictabilitysentences
test. Initially all participants were tested in a quiet andfornoiselevelwereexpected.ANewman–Keulstest
listening environment (i.e., noise absent), using showed that all noise levels differed significantly from
sentences from SPIN list 4 presented at 70dB SPL. each other (p,0.01). The main effect of language
Aftereachsentence,participantswrotedownthetarget reflectedthedifferingperformanceoftheML(68.12%),
wordandreporteditverballytotheexperimenter,who BL (59.73%) and TL (55.75%) groups. Planned
alsowroteitdown.AsinMayoetal.(1997),testingwas comparisonsfoundthatmonolingualsweresignificantly
discontinued if the first 25 targets were correct and a better than bilinguals (p , 0.05) and trilinguals
score of 100% was obtained for the quiet condition. (p,0.001), but that the latter groups did not differ
Otherwise, all 50 sentences were presented and the significantly.
score (as a percentage) was the number of words The main effect of language was qualified by a
correctlyreported.Asafurthercheckuponparticipants’ significantinteractionbetweenlanguageandnoiselevel
Speech perception in noise 5
Table1. Meanpercentageaccuracyandstandarddeviations(SD)formonolingual,bilingualandtrilingualparticipantsateachlevel
ofnoise.
Noiselevel(dBSPL)
Languagegroup n 55 60 65 70 p-value
Monolingual 9 95.11(2.27) 87.78(7.09) 70.67(6.52) 19.11(3.24) ,0.0001
Bilingual 13 89.69(6.14) 83.07(10.78) 56.15(10.78) 10.00(5.05) ,0.0001
Trilingual 12 89.00(4.22) 79.50(9.64) 45.83(9.13) 8.67(5.69) ,0.0001
n.s. n.s. p,0.01 p,0.05
Note:n.s.,Notsignificant.
[F(6,93)¼3.90, p,0.01]. An analysis of simple variance(ANOVA).Themeannoisetolerancelevelwas
main effects showed that differences existed between 66.5dB SPL (SD¼1.69) for monolinguals, 64.78dB
0
1
2/ monolinguals and the other groups at the higher levels SPL (1.40) for bilinguals and 63.63dB SPL (1.52) for
0
2/ of noise (65 and 70dB SPL). These results replicate trilinguals. Language was a between-subject variable
1
on previous findings that in adverse conditions bilingual with three levels (ML, BL, TL), and sentence
s
alla (andnowtrilingual)listenersperformmorepoorlythan predictability was a within-subject variable with two
D
At monolingual listeners. At lower levels of noise no levels(low,high).Thereweresignificantmaineffectsfor
s listening disadvantage was seen. language [F(2,31)¼12.26, p,0.01] and predict-
a
ex The interaction between sentence predictability ability [F(1,31)¼180.78, p,0.001]. Planned com-
T
of and noise was also significant [F(3,31) ¼ 42.29, parisonsshowedthattheformerwasduetohighernoise
y
sit p,0.0001]. Mean scores are shown in table 2. Simple tolerance levels in monolinguals than either bilingual
er
v main effects showed that predictability had a significant (p,0.01) or trilingual (p, 0.01) listeners. The
ni
U effect at all noise levels except 70dB SPL. This suggests difference between bilinguals and trilinguals was just
y
com bnly. trhedatucain‘flgotohreedfiffefcetr’enexciestbseftowreethneh7ig0h-d-BanSdPlLowco-pnrdeidtiioctn- pshreodrtictoabfilsitiygninifitecraancctieon(wpa,sno0t.0si7g)n.ifiTcahnet(lpan.gu0a.g0e5£).
mahealthcare.ersonal use o EabnigliFltiyisvhseesnibmteilnuincltegasun.aelousspleyaskienrcsebhiardth.leTahrneeirddaAtraaabnicdtahnadt ptuetricoTenphsteioonrmeoarmjrooirsrisstiyomns(amdoeofrbefiynatphlaarctnoicnips7oa5nn%atsn)tws.oerfTehssipsuebwesctaihs-
m inforFor p oinftthabeloet3h.erAbtihliingghuearlsnaonisdetlheveemlsothneoylinpgeurfaolrsmaremsihdowwany eusnpveociicaelldy trsuteopsfo.r hEixgahm-fpreleqsuencinyclfurdiceativecsliffan!d
ed fro bHeotwweeevner,thaenaoltyhsiesr sbhioliwngeudaltshaatndthtehyedmidonnoolitngduifaflesr. cflleipet!(sufbeesttitu(rteiodnu)c,edchceluersste!r/bclehneder). (Tomheissrieomn)ainainndg
d
a
o significantly from either of the other groups. errors (including random guesses and no responses)
nl
w Noise tolerance levels (dB) for individual listeners typically occurred in the poorest listening conditions,
o
D
d were analysed using a two-factor mixed analysis of andarelikelytheresultofsignificantspectral/temporal
or
s
Di Table2. Meanpercentageaccuracyandstandarddeviations(SD)forhighandlowpredictablesentencesateachlevelofnoise
n
u
m
Noiselevel(dBSPL)
m
o
C
g SPINwords 55 60 65 70 p-value
n
a
L Highpredictability 96.71(3.75) 94.23(5.24) 71.29(10.95) 13.64(6.86) ,0.0001
nt J Lowpredictability 85.06(6.84) 71.88(12.53) 41.41(9.45) 10.23(4.57) ,0.0001
I p,0.0001 p,0.0001 p,0.0001 n.s.
Note:n.s.,Notsignificant.
Table3. Meanpercentageaccuracyandstandarddeviations(SD)formonolingual,bilingualsincebirthandotherbilingualsateach
levelofnoise
Noiselevel(dBSPL)
Languagegroup n 55 60 65 70
Monolingual 9 95.11(2.27) 87.78(7.09) 70.67(10.81) 19.11(3.24)
Bilingualsincebirth 5 92.80(3.63) 88.80(10.78) 61.60(7.40) 12.40(1.67)
Otherbilingual 8 87.75(6.96) 77.50(9.64) 52.75(16.10) 8.75(12.23)
6 Dollen Tabri et al.
interactions between the target word and background cause a disadvantage in speech perception ability. This
noise (i.e., masking), resulting in decreased linguistic issue appears unresolved perhaps because of the
andextra-linguisticredundancy(e.g.,Florentine1985a, difficulty of finding sufficient numbers of bilinguals
Mayo et al. 1997, Rosenhouse et al. 2006). with very early acquisition of both languages.
An alternative and more recent view is that
bilingualism itself is the culprit and that the speech
Discussion and conclusions
perception problems are not limited to second or later
There isincreasingevidence thatbilingual speakers may acquiredlanguages.ItwasraisedbyVonHapsburgand
experience speech-perception difficulties under adverse Pena (2002) in a review of speech audiometry with
listening conditions compared with monolingual speak- bilingual subjects. They suggested that bilinguals will
ers, whileperforming similarly in quiet conditions (e.g., perform more slowly in reaction time tasks and less
Buus et al. 1986, Florentine 1985a, Mayo et al. 1997, accuratelyinnoise,duetoaneed,eveninamonolingual
0 Rosenhouseetal.2006).Theresultsofthisstudysupport task, to search both their lexicons. Experimental
1
02/ previous findings. That is, while the monolinguals and evidence in support of this view is now available from
12/ bilinguals performed equally in quiet conditions, the studies by Weiss and Dempsey (2008) and Von
n
s o bilingual speakers showed greater speech-perception Hapsburg and Bahng (2008), and Carlo (2008) has
a
all difficulties in noise when signal-to-noise conditions alertedaudiologistswhomayincreasinglyberequiredto
D
At were poor (i.e., when the SNR is zero or þ5dB). testbilingualsubjects.Ifconfirmed,thiswouldincrease
s Importantly, the results of the study suggest that this the number of children who experience speech
a
x
Te finding may be extended to trilingual speakers, who perception problems in noisy classrooms.
of performedsimilarlytobilinguals.Althoughtrendsinthe Thisalternateview,thatbilingualspeechperception
y
sit datasuggestthatspeech-perceptiondeficitsdeclinedmore isgenerallyimpairedunderadverseconditions,doesnot
ver rapidlyinnoisefortrilingualscomparedwithbilinguals, assume that a sensitive period exists and expects that
ni
U thesedifferencesdidnotreachstatisticalsignificance. eventhoseindividualswhoarebilingualfrombirthwill
y
com bnly. perfToromoaunrceknoofwtrlielidnggeuathlespreeaakreersnoonpsrpeveeiocuhspsetrucdepietsioonf bPereviimoupsaisrteuddiewshehnadcfoemwpapraerdticiwpiatnhtsmoofntohliisngkuinalds..
m informahealthcare.For personal use o iLocamnhtfetoibetlnndwanonrdooeloiisnsnnoceghrbluoeettanoghallidssrsnkeswaesfi.rohtelsarieTcmnllehfghsaustetleoaaeagdcmvreehaussuiceilalanaatrbtireEilcloiehnncn!o)gg.omulaifOtasmhlt3huoairenysnnedpkvabaiFrinerrsrtcodieaonc.nufimpcSsaheapegnen(emtaststkaareninaocrdlystfl pafptMhecealqerratftuypoioicrrtriehmepesdteaeaannnblttsic.slaesi(mnt1wutg9eoidut9hya7b,al)sesvfi.ievnRmretcyohlopugereaediearrrertsdlisyceiamitonpanaaianlllln.aydyrt(sst2ehlt0awsort0eeee6crtreho)aaamnabctpdiqblpoiufinefonigasueirtutdnhaitodeolnstthlih.hanaeteIvceiineerrr
o
d fr learned their languages before 6 years of age, thus birth. Their performance was between that of mono-
e
ad confirming findings (Mayo et al. 1997, Rogers et al. linguals and other bilinguals at higher noise levels but
o
nl 2006) that listeners with early acquisition and high didnotdiffersignificantlyfromeither.Again,itappears,
w
Do levels of proficiency are affected. there were too few participants to resolve whether a
ord Currently, two views on speech-perception deficits sensitive period for acquisition exists or whether all
s
Di bybilingualspeakersunderadverselisteningconditions bilingualsperformworsethanmonolingualsinnoise.
un appear in the literature. The longstanding view is that Earlier researchers, while detecting a speech-
m
m proficient bilinguals will have difficulty in their second perception deficit in bilinguals, have been undecided
o
C language. Several studies have shown that when tested on its cause. Perceptual causes might include
g
an in their second language (usually English), bilinguals maintenance of attention for the presented language
L
nt J perform like monolinguals in quiet conditions but or the need to select appropriate phonemes from a
I show greater deterioration under adverse listening larger set of potential targets or to search both their
conditions (Caramazza et al. 1973, Crandell and lexicons, as suggested by Von Hapsburg and Pena
Smaldino 1996, Florentine 1985a, 1985b, Florentine (2002). Added to these are environmental factors such
et al. 1984,McAllister1990,Mayo etal. 1997,Rogers as the diminished use of any of their languages
et al. 2006, Rosenhouse et al. 2006). These findings compared with monolinguals. These explanations
have raised concerns that the increasing number of suggest that the problem experienced in noise by
children taught in a second language may be multilingualspeakers may increase with the numberof
handicapped if attending schools with poor classroom languages they use and that this, rather than the order
listeningenvironments.Thestudiesalsofoundagreater or time of acquisition, causes the problems in adverse
disadvantagewhenthesecondlanguageisacquiredlater listening conditions. In the present study, the results
inlife.Asaresult,itisoftenassumedthatveryearlyor are intriguing but not convincing. Trilinguals had a
simultaneous acquisition of a second language will not greater deficit than bilinguals, but not significantly so.
Speech perception in noise 7
Their noise tolerance level was also lower but was just membersofwhichacquiredtheirsecondlanguageafter
short of significance. age 14 years and who showed a significantly greater
Perceptual studies offer some clues about the decline in performance with noise, may also have a
problems bilingual and trilingual speakers may face. differentpatternoflateralizationthantheirearlygroup.
Bosch and Sebastian-Galles (2003) and Sebastian- Criticsmightarguethatdeficitsinasecondorthird
Galles and Bosch (2009) studied vowel contrasts language are an inevitable consequence of a preference
presentinCatalanbutnotSpanish.At4monthsofage, for an earlier learned language and that any further
infantsinCatalan,Spanishandbilingualenvironments deficitshownbytrilingualscomparedwithbilingualsis
allperceivedthecontrast.At8months,Catalaninfants a reflection of the marginal status of their third
were successful, but Spanish infants were not. language. As in other studies of this kind, efforts were
Surprisingly bilinguals were also unsuccessful. Hence, made to ensure this was not the case. Participants had
exposure to Spanish appears to impair a skill normally extensive experience of English and used it a high
0 present in Catalan speakers. However, the delay is proportion of the time and in varying contexts.
1
02/ short-lived. By 12 months of age, the bilinguals had The findings also replicate previous studies where
12/ regained the ability. Evidence of a longer-lasting effect multilingual participants demonstrated speech-percep-
n
o is available in Sundara et al. (2006). Here an English tion deficits in noise. At lower noise levels (55 and
s
a
all contrast was tested and French monolingual and 60dB SPL) the groups perform equally. Although the
D
At English/French bilingual children were shown to be task is not especially difficult at low noise levels, it
s significantly poorer than English monolinguals at 4 should be noted that the equal performance across the
a
x
e yearsofage.Sundaraetal.alsoreportdatafromadults. groupswasnotaresultofaceilingeffect.Participantsin
T
of Here the French but not the bilingual speakers were each group made some errors even in the quieter
y
sit significantly poorer than English speakers, suggesting conditions. The results of Rogers et al. (2006) are also
ver that the deficit had been overcome. This result is not persuasive here. Their bilinguals were highly proficient
ni
U entirely convincing, however. The scores for the in English, their second language, spoke it without an
y
b bilingual group were between the two monolingual accent and regarded it as their dominant language, yet
com nly. groups and do not differ significantly from either. thedeficitinnoiseremained.Thisfindingisconsistent
m informahealthcare.For personal use o MgdSsliirinumfoognfiuurucdepluaotalalrvtwnEayeenramo,sgaulanitlskshadhirebngsigeplPs,iettnoahasglnkeukudegdaaragilsrssedic(snrt2diipm0nidde0geirvn8cnita)eahotitviaitoositnnhndg.aoitIfwcofnoeeflrreadoatfnsfuhtratorelhtsmhsoabtetmoirlmpiesnasto,udghnbduuaouyald-tt,l wsatilemiecvaicqteprohulnanyieibsdrdiioettidtoohlmranrntta,ehhgygeeuhaslvaoreugdiwvegeleweeglvsessoiessotrfoudtfipthomlriamtontphfieiaebndciiraileoaeninbdnrcdtogeevutbrieahte.lecisIbny’ateualmcaswtoentaahmgyiiunocema.hfsg.TeeatieAsthnsslteatityrenhleraganattaoeralaer-fl
o
d fr thatbilingualswholearnedtheirsecondlanguagewhen similar subjects in their first but now less dominant
e
ad entering school at age 5 years did, a result consistent language (as well as their second language) would
o
nl with the view that the time of acquisition is important resolve the issue.
w
Do andthatacriticalearlyperiodforacquisitionmayexist. Until recently, bilinguals’ impaired perception in
ord There is also evidence that early bilingualism may noise appeared to be non-contentious. Their impair-
s
Di affect the lateralization of language. Hull and Vaid ment was clearly demonstrated as was the relative
un (2006, 2007) conducted a meta-analysis of laterality benefit of early acquisition and experience. The
m
m studies comparing monolinguals and bilinguals. proposal that a sensitive period for learning a second
o
C Monolinguals and late bilinguals (a second language language existed provided some explanation of the
g
an learnt after 6 years of age) showed left hemisphere effect. Languages would be impaired when learnt
L
J dominance for both languages, while early bilinguals beyond that period or when they were less proficient
nt
I (before age 6 years) showed bilateral representation of than the first. Failures to show conclusively that either
bothlanguages. In the late group, language proficiency very early acquisition or high levels of proficiency and
is associated with stronger left hemisphere dominance. usageinasecondlanguageovercometheproblemhave
The relevance of these results to speech perception is led some to doubt this view; recent evidence that first
strengthenedbythefactthattheyareparticularlystrong languages are also impaired has confused it. It now
in dichotic listening experiments. Thus, proficient appears that the quantity of languages may be more
speakers with early acquisition of their languages—the importantthantheirqualityortheirageofacquisition.
type studied here—may have bilateral hemispheric The findings reported here are suggestive but far from
representation. In contrast, proficient but late acqui- conclusive. The traditional call for further research, on
sition of a second language appears to build upon left this occasion, appears justified. Increasing linguistic
hemispheredominancethatexistsforthefirstlanguage. diversityofferspromiseforsuchresearch,althougheven
Thus,thelatebilingualgroupinMayoetal.(1997),the in favourable language learning environments such as
8 Dollen Tabri et al.
Lebanon, it may be difficult to find sufficient numbers CARAMAZZA,A.,YENI-KOMSHIAN,G.,ZURIF,E.andCARBONE,E.,
ofsubjectswithhighlevelsoffluencyinathirdlanguage 1973, The acquisition of new phonological contrasts: the
case of stop consonants in French–English bilinguals.
or with simultaneous acquisition of their languages.
JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,54,421–428.
Researchersinthisareahavedrawnattentiontothe
CARLO, M. A., 2008, A review of the effects of bilingualism on
problemsthatmaybeexperiencedbychildrenlearning
speechrecognitionperformance.PerspectivesonHearingand
inasecondlanguageinnoisyschools.Thefindingshere HearingDisorders:ResearchandDiagnostics,13,14–20.
unsurprisingly extend this concern to children with CRANDELL, C., 1991, Classroom acoustics for normal-hearing
morethan two languages.A further concern is that the children:implicationsforrehabilitation.EducationalAudiol-
ogyMonograph,2,18–38.
numbersofchildreninvolvedarerapidlyincreasing.If,
CRANDELL, C., 1992, Classroom acoustics for hearing-impaired
asrecentresearchsuggests,thedeficitinnoiseispresent
children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92,
for all the languages that children speak this number 2470.
will increase yet further. These findings justify concern CRANDELL, C., 1993, Noise effects on the speech recognition of
0 about the education of minority groups, and highlight children with minimal hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, 14,
1
2/ the need for school administrators and teachers to 210–216.
0
12/ ensure optimal classroom listening environments for CRANDELL,C.andSMALDINO,J.,1996,Speechperceptioninnoise
n by children for whom English is a second language.
o their non-native students.
s AmericanJournalofAudiology,5,47–51.
a
all DEPARTMENTFORCHILDREN,SCHOOLSANDFAMILIES(DCSF),
D
At 2010,MaintainedPrimarySchools:NumberandPercentageof
s Note Pupils by First Language. January 2010 (Provisional).
xa (London:DCSF).
y of Te 1. ATrhaebiscpioskuennusfuoarmlinehxaisvtisngindivstairnioctusspdoikaelnecatsn,dswomritetednifffoerrminsg. FINITZOA-uHdiItEoBrEyR,DTi.s,or1d9e8rs8,iCnlaSsscrhooooml Cachoiuldsrteicns.(INneRw.RYooesrekr,(eNdY.):,
sit substantially. Literary Arabic is used in formal and written Thieme-Stratton),pp.221–223.
ver communication.Thereisexperimentalevidencefrompriming FLORENTINE, M., 1985a, Non-native listeners’ perception of
Uni studies (Ibrahim and Aharon-Peretz 2005, Ibrahim 2009) for American-English in noise. Proceedings of Inter-noise ’85,
by the cognitive independence of the two forms. A reviewer pp.1021–1024.
mahealthcare.com ersonal use only. smWcuoigneggfhauectss,ktientndhgoe.wtrhelaefotdrtgehe,etbhbeiislri,enbfgeuurtraefledaltntotdhatarstildtirnoilgiinungaglusosaplienaanktdheerqstuienaxdttrhmiilsiingphgatupabeler. FFLLOORREENNSnnpTTppoaIIten.NNiev-HEEcne,,h-alM8tMiis5pvt.ee.e,–,rn11ceB9le6irp8Uss.t.5tUeibPonS,,nreoSrScspo.e.,eefdeJSciotHnhhugArrpsenResoaFhrf,lcoetBlhpode.ftsiAoatinnchnodeiunnsCAtnoiAccioaosNieulsE´esSVtfioboEccyraTiel,fltnyuGSaeoto.nif,cvtiJe,e1atn9ypao8ann4nod-f,,
m inforFor p AMERICRAeNferNeAnTcIOesNAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), 1989, HULL,ARm.earnicda,V7A5ID(,SJu.,pp2l0.016),,Ls8a4te.rality and language experience.
o Laterality,11,436–464.
ed fr SNpYec:ifiAcNatSioIn).sforAudiometers(ANSI-53.6-1989)(NewYork, HULL, R. and VAID, J., 2007, Bilingual language lateralization: a
oad AMERICAN SPEECH–LANGUAGE–HEARING ASSOCIATION meta-analytictaleoftwohemispheres.Neuropsychologia,45,
wnl (ASHA), 2005a, Acoustics in educational settings: 1987–2008.
Do position statement [position statement]. Available from IBRAHIM, R., 2009, The cognitive basis of diglossia in Arabic:
d www.asha.org/policy. evidencefromarepetitionprimingstudywithinandbetween
or languages.PsychologyResearchandBehaviorManagement,2,
Dis AMERICAN SPEECH–LANGUAGE–HEARING ASSOCIATION 93–105.
mun (rAepSoHrtA)[,te2c0h0n5icba,lArceopuosrtitc].sinAveadiulacbalteionfraolmsettwinwgws:.ateshcha.noircga/l IBRAHIM, R. and AHARON-PERETZ, J., 2005, Is literary Arabic a
m policy. secondlanguage for native Arabspeakers?: evidencefrom a
ng Co AMERI(CAASNHA)S,PE2E0C0H5c–,LAGNuGidUeAlGinEe–sHfoErARaINddGressAinSgSOaCcIoAuTsItOicNs 3se4m,a5n1t–ic7p0r.imingstudy.JournalofPsycholinguisticResearch,
a
J L in educational settings [guidelines]. Available from JERGER, G. F. and HAYES, D., 1980, Diagnostic applications of
nt www.asha.org/policy. impedance audiometry, middle ear disorder, sensorineural
I BILGER, R. C., NUETZEL, J. M., RABINOWITZ, W. M. and disorder. In G. F. Jerger and G. L. Northern (eds),
RZECZKOWSKI,C.,1984,Standardizationofatestofspeech Clinical Impedance Audiometry (Acton, MA: American
perceptioninnoise.JournalofSpeechandHearingResearch, Electromedics),pp.109–127.
27,32–38. JOHNSON, C. E., 2000, Children’s phoneme identification in
BLAIR, J., 1977, Effects of amplification, speechreading, and reverberation and noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and
classroomenvironmentonreceptionofspeech.VoltaReview, HearingResearch,43,144–157.
79,443–449. JOHNSON,J.S.andNEWPORT,E.L.,1989,Criticalperiodeffectsin
BOSCH, L. and SEBASTIAN-GALLES, W., 2003, Simultaneous secondLanguagelearning:theinfluenceofmaturationalstate
bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific on the acquisition of English as a second language.
vowelcontrastinthefirstyearoflife.LanguageandSpeech, CognitivePsychology,21,60–99.
46,217–243. KALIKOW, D. N., STEVENS, K. N. and ELLIOT, L. L., 1977,
BUUS, S., FLORENTINE, M., SCHARF, B. and CANEVET, G., 1986, Developmentofatestofspeechintelligibilityinnoiseusing
Native French listeners’ perception of American-English in sentence materials with controlled word predictability.
noise.ProceedingsofInter-noise’86,pp.895–898. JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,61,1337–1351.
Speech perception in noise 9
KNECHT,H.A.,NELSON,P.B.,WHITELAW,G.M.andFETH,L.L., isthedistributionalaccountallthereistoit?Developmental
2002, Background noise levels and reverberation times Science,12,874–887.
in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. SUNDARA,M.andPOLKA,L.,2008,Discriminationofcoronalstops
AmericanJournalofAudiology,11,65–71. by bilingual adults: the timing and nature of language
KOEHNKE,J.andBESING,J.,1996,Aprocedurefortestingspeech interaction.Cognition,106,234–258.
intelligibility in a virtual listening environment. Ear and
SUNDARA, M., POLKA, L. and GENESEE, F., 2006, Language
Hearing,17,211–217.
experiencefacilitatesdiscriminationof/d-ð/inmonolingual
MAYO,L.H.,FLORENTINE,M.andBUUS,S.,1997,Ageofsecond-
and bilingual acquisition of English. Cognition, 100,
language acquisition and perception of speech in noise.
369–388.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40,
686–693. TAKATA,Y.andNABELEK,A.,1990,Englishconsonantrecognition
MCALLISTER, R., 1990, Perceptual Foreign Accent: L2 Users’ in noise and in reverberation by Japanese and American
Comprehension Ability. New Sounds 90 (Amsterdam: listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88,
UniversityofAmsterdam). 663–666.
0 NABELEK, A. K. and DONAHUE, A. M., 1984, Perception of US BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 2000, Languages Spoken at Home
2/1 consonants in reverberation by native and non-native (Washington,DC:USBureauoftheCensus).
2/0 listeners. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 75, VON HAPSBURG, D. and BAHNG, J., 2008, Effects of noise on
n 1 632–634. bilingual listeners’ first language (L1) speech perception.
s o ROGERS, C. L., LISTER, J. L., FEBO, D. M., BESING, J. M. and Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and
alla ABRAMS, H. B., 2006, Effects of bilingualism, noise, and Diagnostics,13,21–26.
D reverberationonspeechperceptionbylistenerswithnormal
At hearing.AppliedPsycholinguistics,27,465–485. VON HAPSBURG, D. and PENA, E. D., 2002, Understanding
Texas ROSENHpeOrUceSpE,tioJ.n, iHnAaIdKv,eLrs.ealnisdtenKiInSgHOcoNn-dRiAtiBoInNs,iLn.,A2ra0b0i6c-,HSepbereecwh bSpileiencghu,aLliasnmguaangdeiatsndimHpeaacrtionngRspeeseeacrhcha,u4d5io,m20et2ry–.2J1o3u.rnalof
of bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10, WEISS, D. and DEMPSEY, J. J., 2008, Performance of bilingual
ersity SEBAST1IA1N9-–G1A3L5L.ES,W.andBOSCH,L.,2009,Developmentalshift sinpenakoeisresotenstth(eHEINngTli)s.hJaonudrnSaplaonfisthheveArmsioerniscaonftAhceadheemaryinogf
v
ni inthediscriminationofvowelcontrastsinbilingualinfants: Audiology,19,5–17.
U
y
b
com nly.
mahealthcare.ersonal use o
m inforFor p
o
d fr
e
d
a
o
nl
w
o
D
d
or
s
Di
n
u
m
m
o
C
g
n
a
L
J
nt
I
10 Dollen Tabri et al.
Appendix: Language background questionnaire
TableA1.
LanguageGroup # Question
All 1 Whatisyourage? _____(years)
All 2 Whatlanguagedoyouconsiderasyourprimary(“Mother”)language?
A Arabic A English A French A Other_____________(nameoflanguage)
All 3 Areyoufluentinmorethanonelanguage?
A No A Yes
IfYes,doyouconsideryourselfasaBilingualorTrilingual?
0 A Bilingual A Trilingual
1
2/
0
2/ BL 4 Doyouconsideryourselfasa“bilingual”,withArabicandEnglishasthelanguagesyouknow?
n 1 A No A Yes
o
s
Dalla TL 4 ADoyNouocoAnsideYresyourselfasatrilingual,withEnglishasyour3rdlanguage?
At
s BL 5 Atwhatagedidyoustartlearningeachofthefollowinglanguages:
a
ex Arabic _____(age) English_____(age)
T
of TL 5 Atwhatagedidyoustartlearningeachofthefollowinglanguages:
ersity LLaanngguuaaggee12::NNaammeeooffLLaanngguuaaggee_____________________________ __________(a(gaeg)e)
niv Language3:English _____(age)
U
by BL 6 Sincewhatagedoyouconsideryourselfas“bilingual”? _____(age)
com nly. TL 6 Sincewhatagedoyouconsideryourselfas“trilingual”? _____(age)
m informahealthcare.For personal use o AAllll 78 WAWAhheaAArtetmtydhepiordeimcoyaeofnuEEnAlnegaglrilsnishAhEtdnsidcgAhliyosohoulB(ClreiAhtairesnch?kEAantllgwltihosahrktapAply)?Other_________________________(list)
o BL 9 Inwhichlanguagedoyouconsideryourselfmostfluentverbally(checkone)?
d fr A Arabic A English A Iamequallyfluentinboth
e
d
a
nlo TL 9 Inwhichlanguagedoyouconsideryourselfmostfluentverbally(checkone)?
w Language#1:_____________(nameoflanguage)
o
D Language#2:_____________(nameoflanguage)
ord Language#3: ENGLISH
Dis Iamequallyfluentin:_________________________(list)
n
mu BL 10 Inwhichlanguagedoyouunderstand(comprehend)best?
m A Arabic A English A Iunderstandbothlanguagesequally
o
C
g
n TL 10 Inwhichlanguagedoyouunderstand(comprehend)best?
a
L
J Language#1:_____________(nameoflanguage)
nt Language#2:_____________(nameoflanguage)
I Language#3: ENGLISH
Iamequallyfluentin:_________________________(list)
ML 11 Whencommunicatingwithothers(verballyandinwriting),doyouuseEnglish100%ofthetime?
A No A Yes
Ifno,pleaseexplain:__________________________________________________________
BL,TL 11 Whencommunicatingwithothers(verballyandinwriting),whatpercentageofthetime,duringatypicalday,
doyoucommunicateinEnglish?
A ,10% A 25% A 50% A 75% A $90%
BL 12 Whencommunicatingwithothers(verballyandinwriting),whatpercentageofthetime,duringatypicalday,
doyoucommunicateinArabic(Motherlanguage)?
A #10% A 25% A 50% A 75% A $90%